Latest Cases

Medical practitioner – Professional misconduct. The claimant was a consultant in general and colorectal surgery employed by the defendant Trust. Concerns about his clinical practice began to emerge and the defendant notified the claimant that it considered that there was a prima facie case of gross misconduct by him and a disciplinary panel would be constituted. The defendant provided its management case twelve 12 working days before the disciplinary hearing was due to commence. The claimant sought an adjournment and when the panel refused the claimant sought an injunction preventing the defendant from continuing in the hearing. The Queen's Bench Division refused the injunction holding that there was no good reason to intervene in the discretion of the panel. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant bank brought a claim against its former employee, the fourth defendant, for breaching his equitable and contractual duties to the bank by granting unauthorised banking facilities to the first defendant company which later went into administration. The employee, in his defence, contended that a demand by the bank calling in the debt had ratified his letter granting the loan facility and had waived the bank's rights against him. The Chancery Division, in granting the bank summary judgment, held that the bank had been entitled to recover its money by issuing a demand and it had not waived its debt in so doing. Accordingly, there was no reasonable prospect of the defence succeeding. 

Bank – Contract. The parties made a contract, whereby the claimants, Decura, would exclusively supply the defendant company, UBS with financial products and services. A dispute arose out of Decura's asserted right to terminate pursuant to cl 20 of the contract. The Commercial Court, in finding for UBS, held that the word 'material' would be defined as 'substantial' or 'insignificant', and that, on the wording of the contract, there had been no cessation of a part of UBS' business that proved Decura's case. 

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. The mother had brought her children to the United Kingdom from Ireland and the father had issued proceedings for their return under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980. The judge, having noted the children's desire not to return to Ireland, was not satisfied that the children's views could properly have been said to have amounted to a clear objection in Convention terms. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the gateway stage should be confined to a straightforward and fairly robust examination of whether the simple terms of the Convention were satisfied, in that the child objected to being returned, and had attained an age and degree of maturity at which it was appropriate to take account of his views. In particular, the approach to the gateway stage set out in Re T (abduction: child's objections to return)[2000] 2 FCR 159 should be abandoned. Further, guidance was given on the procedure to be followed when a child applied, for the first time, to be added as a party at the appeal stage. 

Local authority – Statutory powers. The local authority applied for a secure accommodation in respect of SS who was being keep in a secure unit. The Family Division noted that the restriction of liberty of a child was an extremely serious step, especially where the child had not committed any criminal offence, nor was alleged to have committed any criminal offence and the circumstances of SS's case did not warrant such an order. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to France to serve a sentence of imprisonment of seven years for offences including money laundering. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that it had not been open to the appellant to argue that the forum bar in s 19B of the Extradition Act 2003 applied. Further, there had been no abuse of process nor, having rejected new evidence, disproportionate interference with his and his wife's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Data protection – Processing of information. The first defendant, Google, sought to strike out the claimant's proceedings, claiming damages and injunctive relief with respect to images and footage of private sexual activity, or judgment in its favour on the basis that the claimant had no prospect of success. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the application held that the claimant's primary case on ss 10 and/or 13 and 14 of the Data Protection Act 1998 was not such that it had no real prospect of success. On the contrary, it seemed to be a viable claim which raised questions of general public interest which ought to proceed to trial. 

Contract – Loan agreement. The defendant entered into a number of financing arrangements with a consortium of banks, including the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), concerning the purchase of a property in Madrid. The rights and obligations under a junior loan, an upside fee agreement (UFA) and a personal loan had been transferred from RBS to the claimants. The defendant defaulted on the personal loan. The claimants claimed the principal sum of €105,201,095.89, to which they claimed to be entitled as a fee due under the UFA, plus interest. The Commercial Court held that a 'payment event' had occurred, pursuant to the events of default under the agreement. Further, a clause in the agreement allowing for the fee, was not unenforceable as a penalty or disguised penalty. 

Landlord and tenant – Repair. The tenant rented a second floor flat from the landlord and injured himself after tripping on an uneven pathway that led from the door to the block of flats to the rubbish bins. The judge held that the landlord was not liable under the extended covenant implied into the tenancy by s 11(1A) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held, inter alia, that the pathway could properly be described as the exterior of the front hall, over which the landlord had a legal easement and, accordingly, in principle, the extended covenant applied. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant company contracted to provide devices to the defendant company, British Gas, to reduce water consumption. A dispute arose as to the amount to which the claimant was entitled, and the defendant sought summary judgment and/or to strike out the claim. The Commercial Court held that, on the evidence, it would not be appropriate to decide the relevant issues without a detailed consideration that was not suitable for determination on a summary application.